Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Old log files Note:As this about files in the Memory Alpha: namespace related to the administration, normal deletion rules might not apply. This is more a discussion. * (I already had moved that one before realizing what it is) *Memory Alpha:Deletion log *Memory Alpha:Upload log *Memory Alpha:Protection log *Memory Alpha:Block log These five seem to be old log files from before the server move. We now have for all these. Do we want to keep the old stuff or delete it? -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', I'm all for cleaning house. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I deleted all of these pages but noticed that several still link to a lot of other internal pages. I intended to change them, but I am not sure to what, so the remaining blue links need to either have their links removed from other pages or replaced with the updated-replacement links on other those pages. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'd like to see some more comments regarding the deletion of these anyway - some other admins, perhaps? After all, these are log files, so we should definitely agree on what to do... -- Cid Highwind 08:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***To be fair, it has been 5 days AND very few of us/them seem to partake in much voting these days...be it categories, featured articles or what have ya...--Alan del Beccio 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'm not quite sure how they'd be useful, is there a feeling we should be able to peruse lists of files deleted or protected years ago? it might be nice to archive somewhere, i guess -- are we required to record vandalism and the like -- thats probably a good portion of the the block and protection info (as well as a majority of deletions). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I dont see any real reason to keep a list of individuals and IPs we've blocked from a year or year + a half ago, its really only the last 6 to 9 months that are important, if anyone is really keeping track of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) * Delete - I also don't see a reason to keep these (and honestly didn't know they existed) There's an "edit page", I'm fairly new, so I'm wondering: back in the day, you had to manually log each deleted page? - AJHalliwell 00:49, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) Favorite Son redirect ;Favourite Son : Misspelled redirect to VOY: "Favorite Son". --Shran 09:20, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'- we have no tolerance for British English here. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 12:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' I am British, but I wouldn't expect an American website to have British spelling. Tough Little Ship 12:07, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. Redirects should be deleted if they make it difficult to locate a similarly named article, might cause confusion, are offensive or simply make no sense (see ). Nothing of this applies here - in fact, it seems to be a very useful redirect for someone searching for that episode without being aware of the "correct" spelling. -- Cid Highwind 12:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*Ahh. Very good points indeed. I guess I'll go with keep, then. --Shran 13:32, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I also agree with cid, Keep Tobyk777 00:01, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *This reminds me of when my redirect from Kubus to Kubus Oak kept disappearing (not sure who deleted it), probably because the only page linking to it was The Collaborator. As Cid said, redirects are for people who don't know the "correct" spelling, and even in cases where it seems unlikely - ie an arguably forgettable character like Kubus or an arguably obvious spelling like this - what harm could it do? Keep. --Schrei 14:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think this might be a case for expanding Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:09, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Agreed... while the admins should be more careful when it comes to immediately deleting redirects which could potentially be useful, those who created them should also remember to place a link to them on the useful redirects page so it's certain they were created for a purpose. Keep. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 16:35, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Im not sure I like this. We've already, previously agreed upon using what appeared on the title card, and clearly Commonwealth English wasn't used. If we have links (redirects or otherwise) to what is more-or-less considered "mis-spelled" terms, then people are going to start linking to them with-in articles, in which case, they are going to go from being so-called "useful redirects" to practical links. Then we would have to create links for all of the other "mis-spelled" episode titles "Judgement" (-->"Judgment," which we've deleted before) and really, do we want to open that can of worms? --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', agreed. And not just cause it'd be a big project making a bunch of redirects, just because we have decided on using American english on several occasions. - AJHalliwell 00:51, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect', for those of us who speak real English. Jaz 02:49, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think what you meant was keep since it's already a redirect. :) I discovered earlier that it's acceptable on MA for someone to arbitrarily "correct" Commonwealth spelling in articles based on the fact that Trek is made in the US. By that logic (regardless of its merits), I have to say delete. --Schrei 02:51, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *My worry is about people who may be searching based only on hearing the name of the episode. This is not a spelling mistake, it is the commonly accepted language in most English speaking countries. While I am unsure since I do not own any DVDs, it is possible that in many regions it may be listed with the correct spelling (favourite). Jaz 21:54, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Jaz- British English is not any more real than American English. In everyday writing, "favourite" is no better or worse than "favorite." However, since Star Trek is American, its titles are too. I've gone through articles changing it from British to American English for this very reason. Favorite is correct here. See this in Ten Forward. As for the redirect, delete it, like I said earlier. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 22:37, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***It's their language and we changed the spelling because we're lazy, give them credit where it's due. But this is harmless redirect because if you're so sure that fans will type it in right then you should be equally sure that fans won't link to it as mentioned above. There's no reason not to keep this. Ben Sisqo 04:28, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **You know, this might be appropriate to keep as a redirect but add a link to it to Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings -- in this manner, we can have all links to the redirect automatically listed or changed -- basically, keeping the redirect so the articles stay connected if a non-American English writer writes a European English link, but having an easy ability to find and correct the links through the "common misspelling" resource. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Well my point is, is how do we keep it from weaseling its way into articles, which would suddenly take from the level of being a "redirect" to a "commonly accepted usage of the term"? If we keep it then that means we would have to periodically police the 'what links here' to make sure that it is only being used as a redirect and not as a "real" link, as from the American pov AND the title card spelling, it is not a "common spelling", and it technically misspelled from both the title card and script written in the American usage of English pov. --Alan del Beccio 05:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings page feeds an automatic search function at that lists all recognized misspellings -- we simply have to run a bot through every once in a while and fix all the links. Kobi does this from time to time, he does it very well. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects has a separate section for Non-American spellings now -- any redirects added there could be periodically monitored for links, and altered accordingly. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Alan is right now that I think about it. Although I said delete earlier, I want to reiterate it with less snippitiness because I can see what he means now. If someone types in Favourite Son, I think they can take a hint and figure out why it's not there, right? --Schrei 06:17, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **My count is approximately 7 to 4 in favour of keeping, after two weeks -- could we call this one finished?. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:12, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Junk DNA ;Junk DNA: * No internal links (initially, have since been added), not cited, no Trek content, not ever referenced in Trek, to my knowledge. Delete --Alan del Beccio 04:21, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. - AJHalliwell 05:01, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' posthaste. --Smith 18:24, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', where is this info from? Tobyk777 18:54, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 01:41, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) **'Deleted' --Alan del Beccio 01:41, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) Cardassian Withdrawal ;Cardassian Withdrawal: *Essentially a far weaker version of Cardassian withdrawal found on the Occupation of Bajor page. I would prefer to see it completely gone, but would reluctantly settle for a redirect. --Alan del Beccio 07:38, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** This 'nomination' somehow got removed, so I've reposted it. --Alan del Beccio 03:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect' maybe? I'm not sure how useful that would be, but given that someone created this article thinking it didn't exist, maybe we do need a redirect to prevent another misunderstanding. --Schrei 06:14, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Never mind, this was created when the occupation was a whole one paragraph, before I added... well... everything other than the intro paragraph. Still, a redirect couldn't hurt I guess. --Schrei 06:16, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Walter Irwin ; Walter Irwin No references, no real information. It is basically a death notice. Besides, it looks weird to me. Delete. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 22:47, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Well, it seems he did something with a trek book series http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451454383/, was it paramount approved though? - AJHalliwell 22:58, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::AJ- Thanks for putting the notice on the page. I forgot. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:01, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::It was a literary analysis magazine and paperback series, unapproved by Paramount -- I'm seeing a gray area in MA standard operating procedure -- we've already flirted with fanzine material because of things from fanzines that became canon (like the Constitution-class registries) -- but we've nixed articles on fan movies and fan-produced reference books for the time being. Maybe if things and people like this are decided as not deserving an MA article, theyd be appropriate to list in some sort of appendix section -- fan created publications that found their way into a Paramount approved publication, or even into a canon episode or film. :::Trek and The Best of Trek in particular had many detailed analyses of Star Trek ship registries and timeline dating, before the Star Trek Chronology version came out. This seems important in a small sense, since we have other review magazines in here that were Trek centered or featured Trek -- Starlog is linked a lot, for example, and TV Guide could be, in my opinion, credited as a source for behind-the-scenes info. These magazines could be considered a secondary resource -- as published works that do the same thing as MA -- present information about Star Trek. -- Mr. Irwin should probably be listed there rather than in his own article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:22, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Admiral Jones ;Jones (Admiral) and the resulting redirect Admiral Jones *Can't recall a canon source, not much to go by in the article -- its hardly readable. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:08, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' Both seem to be from a novel, definitly not from any canon source. - AJHalliwell 02:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' quick, fast, and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)